"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
gy.com:


"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
k.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

I have known several people who
already had the technical background
(or most of it) and passed the exam
and knew very little about the rules.
Take the (snip)


While that might be an exception, would a person with a technical
background be the type to ignore rules? Instead, I suspect a person
who would make the effort to gain a technical background would also
likely make the effort to learn the rules of any activity he or she
might be involved in.


Yes they can be. I've known several. They too often fall in the "know
it all" category.


(snip) Plus the questions don't begin to
cover all the rules that directly apply to
the operations of a Technician class licensee.


Well, if you're looking for a test to cover all the rules, it seems
to me
you're looking for a test with several hundred questions. College
students don't even have to take a test with several hundred questions
to pass a class to prepare for a career. Likewise, an extensive exam
like this doesn't fit into the current exam concept (basic exams for
entry into each license class). With that in mind, how are you going
to sell the FCC on that idea?


I think 50 to 100 questions ought to do it. Only the pool would need
to be several hundred questions, just as today's pools are far larger
than the number of questions actually occurring on any one exam.


None of the tests currently comes close
to covering the full scope of rules
applying to the license class on that
particular license exam and that is what needs to be changed.
(snip)


Why? Do you have some evidence (personal, rhetorical, or otherwise)
that
would suggest the current tests are linked to a specific problem with
rule violations? From what I've seen, most violations are the result
of intentional rule infractions, not ignorance of the rules
themselves.



I find band edge violations almost every time I dial up and down the HF
bands.

If the applicant has studied sufficiently to
get 75% right on a rules only test of say
100 or so questions, he/she shouldn't
have too much problem remembering the rules.


My wife only had 50 questions on the exams to pass her international
law
class recently (two 20 question exams and one 10 question exam).
You're asking for much more from people preparing for what is
fundamentally a recreational activity. That, in my opinion, is a
little ridiculous, Dee.


How many questions has she had to pass to get her law degree and to
pass her bar exam?

Fifty to 100 multiple choice questions on the FCC rules is simple as
the rules are very simple.


The rules covered in the exam barely
scratch the surface. And one can miss
most or all the rules questions and still pass the current exam
element.
(snip)


You keep saying that, but do you have anything to suggest it has
ever
happened (much less commonly so)? Again, it is theoretically possible,
but not really very likely. As I said before, a person that poorly
prepared would likely miss several other questions on the exam,
meaning he or she would almost have to get the majority correct on
each part of the exam to pass the overall exam.


On the Tech exam there are only 5 rules questions. That means missing
all 5 gives you a score of 30, which is passing. This gives you room
to miss several other questions on the exam. However several of those
5 are so common sense (i.e. no interference) that even someone who has
not studied will not miss them all. Afterall the passing grade for the
exam is only 74%. That means you can miss a total of 9 and still get
it.

Neither the examiners nor the applicants know which specific questions
were used on any one exam. The answer sheets and question sheets are
separated. So determining whether someone had difficulty with the
technical, operating, or rules sections is not allowed at the test
session. The data could be computerized and correlated at the VEC but
isn't. However in teaching classes and using practice exams, it is
common for a student to struggle with a particular section while acing
the others. The section will vary from student to student however.


I regularly have people tell me they'd
like to practice their code on the air but
"can't because they are only a Tech."
They are totally unaware that they can work code in the VHF (snip)


Did they tell you that (they were unaware they can work code on
VHF), or
is that your interpretation of their comment. I've made a similar
comment once or twice over the years - not because I was unaware I
could work code on VHF, but because there are so few others doing so
on those frequencies.


They actually told me so and were astonished that it was legal for them
to work CW on VHF even though they had not passed a code test. The sad
thing is the only people I ever find on VHF CW are Generals, Advanced
and Extras.


Again, take the Tech test. There is
very little on digital operations or
satellite operations yet these are open to Technicians. (snip)


There was such material in the pool I studied (7/97 - 6/01 pool).
For satellite, questions T1C01 through T1C11, T1E05 through T1E08,
T3C01 through
T3C05, T3C10 through T3C12, and a few others here and there throughout
the pool. There are a similar number of questions for digital
operations.


The current question pool however no longer includes the data rates for
digital. This is quite important for legal operation that does not
exceed the bandwidths for these modes. These groups in the pool are
repetitious repeating the same question in several forms and thus a lot
of important material is omitted.


Or another area that could be included
in the test, although I'd admit it's not a
necessity, is something on the history of amateur radio. (snip)

Or how about including a little bit on
space weather and it's effects not only
on propagation but how major flares
can potentially effect electronics in general. (snip)


Come on, Dee. If you throw in a little more math and language
skills, you
could almost offer a college degree to those who pass the exams you
want.


Note that I said these areas aren't really necessary but simply
interesting. One or two questions in the pool might spark a person's
interest to pursue self study in these areas.


Here is another example. The tests do
not have questions addressing the issue
of how far from the band edge one
should stay to insure that none of their
signal is outside the allowable band.
I've heard (snip)


Not in so many words, but the concepts are there (bandwidths of
various
modes and frequency limits). The old Novice used to have a couple of
questions about this, but I'm not sure that made it's way over to the
new tests.


No it hasn't made its way into the new tests. And I hear this
violation happening regularly when I am on HF and it seems to be
increasing.


Dwight that argument can be turned
against the proposal to eliminate code
testing as follows so don't go there.
"Finally, I have to wonder if there
is any reason to change the exams
at all. The current exams have
evolved over many years, and I
just don't see how the suggested
changes I've seen (yours and
others to eliminate code testing)
offer a real improvement."


Not really. My objection isn't based on the fact that the current
exams
have evolved over the years, but on the fact that I don't see how the
suggested changes offer an improvement. The part about the current
exams evolving over the years was intended to point out how well they
fit the current needs, leaving little room for improvement by the
suggestions offered. The same cannot be said about the code test
because it hasn't really evolved to fit the current needs (from a
regulatory perspective, there is no current need for the code test).
Now, before this turns into a code test debate, lets drop this at
that.


Difference of opinion is fine but don't assume that the FCC knows what
they are doing. Just because they've said it doesn't make it true.
They have a long history of mistakes.


The top three things that any ham should know, in my opinion, are
rules/regulations, safety, and good operating practices. These need
a great deal more coverage than they currently get.


Obviously every Ham should know those things. But, as noted in
section
97.3 of the rules (below), this is an activity oriented towards
self-study or self-training, not massive tests with extensive
knowledge before entrance. [snip]
The rules are there for any Ham to study on their own - with plenty
of
warnings in the exams about what might happen if they don't follow
those rules.


Adding one 50 question test on rules hardly constitutes massive tests
with extensive knowledge. Changing the handful of rules questions in
the current tests to other material if a separate rules test were
instituted hardly constitutes asking for extensive knowledge. My
comments on what could be used for this were to point out that there
was a wealth of material to pick from not to say that ALL technical and
operating issues should be covered. Or one could simply reduce the
number of questions in the Tech, General, & Extra since the rules would
already be covered in the rules exam..

There are NOT plenty of warnings in the exams about what can happen to
violators if they do not follow the rules. Reread the question pool.
There NO questions in the Technician pool about the possible penalties
for violating the rules. Questions about the rules, yes. Questions
about the penalties, no.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



I don't think it is practical to test everyone on everything. Tests are
written in such a way that the candidate doesn't know what will come up, so
has to learn everything in the pool. There should be more questions in the
pool, though, covering topics that are presently left out.

Interestingly, WRC 2003 laid down a syllabus for the first time. However, I
confess I have no idea whether current FCC tests comply with it or not.

Unlike in the US, the UK tests have extensive questions on operating
practice. One thing at least that comes out of that is that UK hams all
know the international phonetics by heart. US hams don't, because it's not
in the FCC question pools. It should be. There are also extensive questions
on interference in the UK, including questions on band edges. If that were
the case in the US, I doubt if you would come across so many US hams
operating USB on 14.350 or the like (I hear them too, and much too often).
The UK question pools are not published, but I know these questions occur.

This is not meant to say that the UK tests are superior, it is just an
observation on a couple of things that ought to be in the FCC question
pools that aren't, and the corresponding broader areas in which the FCC
tests are weak. Yes, I suppose I should write some questions on these
subjects and submit them. It is one of the good points of the US system
that I could do that. It is perhaps also one of it's bad points, in that
questions submitted by volunteers may have a few holes in the first place
(gaps in coverage, not necessarily flaws in the questions).

73 de Alun, N3KIP (Ex-G8VUK, G0VUK)

PS: I am a 'know-it-all' EE, but I don't think anyone in my position would
take the tests without at least reading Part 97.